


The Mandalorian (Name withheld) v. The Transportation Security Administration

by Maggie_GoldenStar1530



Category: The Mandalorian (TV)
Genre: Crack, Crack Treated Seriously, Gen, Legal Drama, cracky as hell
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-04-03
Updated: 2020-04-03
Packaged: 2021-03-01 03:28:39
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 900
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/23464711
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Maggie_GoldenStar1530/pseuds/Maggie_GoldenStar1530
Summary: Being the closing argument in the religious discrimination case of the Mandalorian versus the TSA.A Crack Fic inspired by a random statement on discord. This is what I use my law degree for, I GUESS.
Comments: 15
Kudos: 94





	The Mandalorian (Name withheld) v. The Transportation Security Administration

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present to you the closing arguments in the case of The Mandalorian (Name withheld) versus the Transportation Security Administration. As you have heard over the past few days of testimony, the requirements of the TSA to require passengers to both disarm, and remove any metal on their person in order to board a plane and to present a photo ID as a means for facial recognition is discriminatory on its face to members of the Mandalorian religion. 

The test for religious discrimination is set for in the 1963 United State Supreme Court case of _Sherbert v. Verner._ The test has four parts: two of which apply to the individual claiming religious discrimination, and two of which apply to government agency that has been accused of violating the claimant's rights. 

The test is: 

Whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and

Whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

That it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and

That it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

In terms of the “sincere religious belief” of the Mandalorian, he has demonstrated a lifetime of adherence to the Mandalorian code. He holds weapons at all times, indeed, even while sleeping. 

Yes, we have heard testimony that he disarmed during negotiations with the Jawas during the dispute over salvage rights on the planet Arvala-7, but, and this is crucial, he did not put down every weapon he had on his person. He maintained both at least one vibroblade and his flamethrower- he did not disarm completely. Indeed, the defense could not find a single example of the Mandalorian being completely disarmed at any point since swearing the Creed of Mandalore. 

He also adheres to the requirement to wear his armor and _ more crucially  _ his helmet at all times when in the presence of anyone other than close family. The question of whether the helmet rule, as it is colloquially known, is truly as strict as all that is not at issue. The court is not in a position to question whether someone is following their religion correctly, the question at issue is “Is the claimant sincerely following a religious belief.” 

As there is no living being that can state they have seen the Mandalorian without his helmet, with the exception of his infant child, you can only conclude that he is indeed sincere in his religious expression. A droid, as our expert witness so clearly testified to, is not a living thing, and therefore does not and cannot be seen as a violation of this belief. The IG unit did not consider itself to be a living thing. 

And remember the testimony of Carasynthia Dune, who told us that the Mandalorian refused to remove his helmet even when doing so would have potentially allowed the treatment of life-threatening wounds. Nothing can more clearly demonstrate an adherence to a sincerely held religious belief than being willing to die for it. 

We have established that the Mandalorian’s religious beliefs are sincerely held. Now we turn to the question if  Whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

The Transportation Security Administration requires that passengers not fly with any weapons, and to go through a full body scanner, the TSA claims the Mandalorian must remove his armor and his helmet, which clearly is a substantial burden. I mean, it cannot be clearer that this a substantial burden on the Mandalorian’s ability to both practice his beliefs and board a plane. 

The requirement of a photo ID is unnecessary with the use of chain code cards that prove the identity of the person holding them without the necessity of facial identification. Given the existence of changelings, we can hardly rely solely on photo ID, no matter how “real” we claim it is. 

Having established the two prongs of the Sherbert test that apply to the Claimant, we now turn our attention to the prongs that apply to the government. 

The Government must prove that it is acting in a compelling state interest: they claim these security measures are necessary to prevent violence on airplanes. We do not dispute this, despite the fact that this security theater is nonsense and no Mandalorian has been a part of any state-sponsered terrorism on American soil. But whatever. 

HOWEVER, and again this is crucial, the two prongs that apply to the government must both apply. And the requirement to disarm and completely remove his armor and helmet is not pursuing that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

The witness from the TSA, a witness on the defense’s side has admitted, under oath, that they had considered methods that would allow Mandalorians to travel without having to disarm, but have declined to start using them because “the expense was too great.” There is a less restrictive method, but they just refuse to use it! By their own admission!

Based on this, the government has failed the Sherbert test, and as such, the Transportation Security Administration has discriminated against the Mandalorian on the basis of his religion. We respectfully ask the jury to find for the plaintiff. Thank you. 

**Author's Note:**

> Yes. There's a bibliography. What am I, a goddamn casual?
> 
> Sherbert v Verner: 374 US 398 (1963) 
> 
> https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/526


End file.
